funorbfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Advocates
I think that it would be a great idea if every article had an "advocate". This advocate would be responsible for the general well-being of the article and improvement. For the bigger articles, there could be achievement advocates and/or database advocates, for those games with particularly heavy lists, (AoG and their different summonable units, Steel Sentinels and it's myriad parts, Bachelor Fridge and its moves, etc.) a database advocate. It's basically splitting up the jobs of improving the articles into little pieces. I also think there should be a main page manager, as the main page seems to be slow in adding new games. There could also be a person who maintains a page for new editors. Comments? Thoughts? Ridicule? Piraeus 21:01, December 26, 2009 (UTC) :This sounds interesting.... has then been tested on any other wikis? It sounds good, but I'm afraid it might just flop. Also, I think most of our article aren't big enough to require an individual administrator for each. I think the current Edit/Review system that seems to be going on with Recent Changes seems to be working well, and if anyone wants to institute really big reconstruction, talk page discussions seem fine. Essentially, I think any user who really wants to get involved can become an advocate, taking charge and editing (after all, part of the policies if "Be Bold"). Also, giving "advocate" status would just add an extra level of power, and another one of the policies is that "Everyone is equal - Administrators and IP's". For an advocate to people to do much, he'd have to have power, and that would sort of break down this equality. TimerootT • C • 03:01, December 26, 2009 (UTC) ::No, I just came up with this idea of my own accord. The articles that are smaller and don't seem to require an admin, as you call it, are the ones that always seem to be run down and uninformative. Perhaps a person could advocate for more than one article if they're smaller? I think it would be nice, though, if it were easily distinguishable who was working on which article, this way we know who to talk to. And what's the edit/review system? Sorry, I'm new... Piraeus 21:01, December 26, 2009 (UTC) :::Interesting idea. As long as the advocate is basically just someone who knows a lot about the article, and can be asked for advice and so on, this could work. What wouldn't work is if the advocate felt he had ultimate control of the article, because this would work against the collaborative aspect of a wiki. I wouldn't want to see an advocate simply revert an editor's bold contribution. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 17:40, December 26, 2009 (UTC) ::::Oops... *signs previous posts* About choosing the advocates... perhaps we could have small elections, with permanent advocates unless someone raises an issue? And the power and superiority issue has been raised a lot - if this gets implemented, I guess it would have to be made clear that being and advocate is a duty, not a position of power. Piraeus 21:01, December 26, 2009 (UTC) So... any way we could try out this idea? Perhaps on the new Bachelor Fridge article? It needs a lot of work, obviously.